48bit image editing - PhotoLine 17 released

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>If you are tired of Adobe's new upgrade policy, or if you don't need or want bloat software or a dinosaur on your hard drive, you should take a very close look at PhotoLine, a fully fledged 16/48/64 bit image editor for 64 bit Windows and 64 bit Mac OS X for the price of just 60 Euro or USD.</p>

<p>I've written an article in <strong><em><a href="http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/category/photography/software/photoline-48-bit-image-editing/">my blog</a></em></strong> about the features of the new version 17, which had been released just a couple of days ago.</p>

<p>IMHO most photographers won't reach the limits of this great software, which is just a 30 MB download and a mere 80 MB on your hard drive.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Interesting... Thanks for the Info. I'm afraid though that without some real rocket app(s) from the sw, it will be hard to convince<strong> users</strong> of the Shop to switch. For one thing I'd be wary of the learning curve. <br>

That said, the <em>"excellent RAW converter"</em> could be a winning ticket by itself, <em>if... </em><strong>IF </strong>it doesn't have to be upgraded with every new dslr model. And if it worked with non-Intel Macs..! And I mean: <strong>Now</strong> and into the <strong>Future..!</strong><br>

<em>Does it..? </em></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Nothing can beat non-destructing parametric instruction editing of Raw, Jpeg and Tiff images in the form of an xmp file or database workflow within ACR/LR especially if you're managing thousands of images.</p>

<p>Adobe's not just about making pretty pictures with bloated software. They're about workflow efficiency. You know, time is money.</p>

<p>PhotoLine will probably become popular with hobbyists, though. But then what hobbyist cares about 64 bit editing viewing on an 8 bit video system.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Does it..?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know, contact the developers!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing can beat non-destructing parametric instruction editing of Raw, Jpeg and Tiff images in the form of an xmp file or database workflow within ACR/LR especially if you're managing thousands of images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fine and great for you, if you need to manage 'thousands of images'. But the majority doesn't need to manage gazillions of images, they just want perfect images, a reasonably priced software and perfect prints - exactly that is what PhotoLine delivers.</p>

<p>BTW, as an analog photographer I am working with PhotoLine, because it does open my 650 MB TIFF files without any hickup or flaw like PShop. That's the reason why I switched. Oh, yes, and there is no 'Bridge' that prefers to crash when opening huge TIFF files!</p>

[jcoffin]

<p>Tim: Actually, I find that quite a few things beat ACR/LR easily, especially when dealing with a large number of images. Bibble, for one obvious example, provides similar types of capabilities (non-destructive layer-based editing, etc.), an interface I find substantially cleaner, and is so much faster that it makes LR seem about like a 95 year-old trying to compete in the 100 meter dash at the Olympics.</p>

<p>In any case, even a quick glance shows that PhotoLine is trying to compete with Photoshop, not LR (much less Bibble). Depending on what you want, there are some pretty worthy competitors to LR such as Aperture, Bibble, and Raw Therapee. Which if these you prefer will depend somewhat on what parts/features of LR and ACR you use the most.</p>

<p>Aperture probably has the cleanest interface, but (ever so slightly) inferior processing.</p>

<p>Bibble, as already mentioned, is also cleaner and drastically faster than LR even hopes for.</p>

<p>I find Raw Therapee the slowest and clumsiest to use, but its processing capability (especially the Bayer extraction) is not only better than ACR provides, but probably the best you can get from anybody at any price right now.</p>

<p>Of course, there are quite a few more as well, but I haven't used DxO, Capture 1 Pro, Phocus, etc., recently enough to say much about them. I can, however, observe, that everybody I know who uses any of these has used LR, and decided to use these instead, often at considerable extra expense.</p>

[angkordave]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, as an analog photographer I am working with PhotoLine, because it does open my 650 MB TIFF files without any hickup or flaw like PShop. That's the reason why I switched. Oh, yes, and there is no 'Bridge' that prefers to crash when opening huge TIFF files!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I do wonder why any amateur would need to use 650mb Tiff Files? You must be intending to make humungous prints from your scans!</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>You mean just because I don't use Adobe products I must be an amateur?</p>

<p>Interesting small horizon...</p>

[angkordave]

<p>Apologies for that last comment.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I don't know whether or not Dave actually thought that the OP was an amateur. Dave made no such statement and my guess is that he didn't make this assumption. However, at the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, I will confess that although it hardly mattered, I guessed this was probably the case. My guess had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the OP doesn't use Adobe products, but it was because of the OP's statement, <em>"Fine and great for you, if you need to manage 'thousands of images'. But the majority doesn't need to manage gazillions of images, they just want perfect images..."</em>,</p>

<p>All pros that I know that have been in this field for any length of time (a) have tens or even hundreds of thousands of images that absolutely *must* be managed effectively to be a reliable source of income; and, (b) usually, pros are operating under such tight time / money constraints, that to be a good business person, they simply can't take the time to perfect each image. Unlike devoted amateurs, most working pros will quickly get each image looking good, but have to move on to the next paying customer / image instead of seeking perfection in each image.</p>

<p>Of course, there are types of professional photography (eg, high end product photography, low volume studio portraiture, scientific photography, fine art sales, etc. ) that are low volume - ultra high quality, and hence, are exceptions to the general trend, but, I would say that the majority of working pros, ie, those in the trenches shooting wedding, sports, photojournalists, school & team, high volume portraits, cruise ship and resort photography, producing endless thumbnails for on-line catalogs, etc.) unfortunately, just don't have this luxury.</p>

<p>There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur, and indeed, I know many amateurs who are more technically vastly more knowledgeable and/or have a better artistic sensibility than some of the pros that I know. In fact, I would go so far as to say that because of the removal of the time and money constraints, in many ways, it's much better to be an amateur photographer than having to depend on photography to supply a good chunk of your income.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - BTW, thanks to the OP for pointing out this software. It looks good and I hope it does give Adobe a run for their money and contribute to keeping Adobe's pricing in check . I was completely unaware of it.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>A craftsman has different toolboxes to shape his work or perform his task. Some use a Black & Decker 'amateur tool' and deliver a perfect wooden cabinet.</p>

<p>Just because Adobe permanently claims that its software is an 'Industry Standard', the statement is far from being true: Adobe's products are not mentioned or listed in the DIN/ISO or UL specifications anywhere in the world.</p>

<p>All they feature is a marketing department that hammers lies into the heads of the users.</p>

<p>The only common denominator which could serve as a global 'standard' is a TIFF (to reduce it to the smallest fraction).</p>

<p>If you are not fed up by Adobe's current update policy, go for it. If you need to manage thousands of tiny 'standard' images, go for it. If you think you need it, go for it. If you like to download and install a GB, go for it.</p>

<p>I'm just glad to be able to use a very versatile tool that perfectly serves my needs - and I guess the needs of millions of other photographers as well.</p>

<p>There are several paths to reach a goal. It's up to you which one you prefer.</p>

<p>I didn't want to start a war here, just show a very interesting alternative to 16/48 bit image editing. I'm not married to the company, I don't force you to buy it. But I think it's good to know that <strong>there are alternatives</strong>.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Does PhotoLine come with a bad attitude or is that a plugin?</p>

[angkordave]

<p>Now that i've read Jens blog I can see it could be worthwhile trying Photo line out. Most of my image editing is done in Bridge & ACR so i doubt whether I use more than 10% of the main program; and that's only for graphic design work and comps with layers. Ive tried GIMP, ACDC, Capture NX and non work as well as PS . LR has excellent tools; but I prefer Bridge and ACR.<br>

I'll give it a try</p>